NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GOPAL PRASAD KHANAL, No. 17-70372 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-206-519 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 6, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Gopal Prasad Khanal, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility determination against him that resulted in the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Convention Against Torture (CAT). We dismiss the petition as to Khanal’s CAT claim and claim of persecution on account of his religion because those issues were not exhausted before the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition as to Khanal’s claim for withholding of removal because he failed to “specifically and distinctly” discuss the matter in his opening brief. Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)). We deny the petition as to Khanal’s asylum claim for the reasons given below, exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). We will not disturb the agency’s finding that a petitioner is not credible unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (observing that we “afford a ‘healthy measure of deference to agency credibility determinations’” (citation omitted)). Therefore, “only the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)). Here, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 2 substantial evidence. Khanal claimed that he feared returning to Nepal because Maoists had physically harmed him when he refused to give them money and crates of Coca-Cola. But Khanal’s testimony was rife with inconsistencies between his initial interviews, sworn declaration, and oral testimony before the IJ as to what motivated the Maoists to allegedly harm him. Khanal initially claimed in his interviews that the Maoists were motivated only by money, then claimed in his sworn declaration that the harm was politically motivated and a result of his religious views and the Maoists’ lack thereof. Before the IJ, Khanal returned to his view that the Maoists were motivated only by money. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals